CHANGE THE RATING!

[FanofUK]

I have said this before but after seeing more threads on our previous players the rating needs to change.

A 5 star should never be a project player, he should either be physically gifted ala Zion/Boogie/Davis/Fox/Wall.
Or can already shoot the lights out Ala Hero/Booker/Lamb etc.

Ware (and I love his toughness) should be a 4 star.
Hagans - 4
Boston - 4
Askew- 4 (could argue high 3)
Dakari Johnson - 4
EJ Montgomery - 4
Clarke - 4


These are just some examples, can they bloom into a 5 star sure, but calling them a 5 is a big issue imo.
And if they do not produce and get benched early on = TRANSFER!
Or in Cal's case he will not bench a 5 (because of fear of transfer) and the good shooters that are 4s will go.

 

[TrueBluePhil]

The coaching staff shouldn't rely on these ratings. They should be good enough to evaluate talent and the BS star rating should be irrelevant to them

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

Evaluator failure...

 

[Anon1679859502]

Skills should be considered when rating these kids not just athleticism. Some of these kids dominate in high school just from being bigger than the rest of the players.
And shooting guard should know how to shoot and make shots, anyone can shoot a basketball but you you have to make it in the hoop.

 

[FanofUK]

The coaching staff shouldn't rely on these ratings. They should be good enough to evaluate talent and the BS star rating should be irrelevant to them

I agree with that, but the problem is putting that GOLD 5 star on a player plays with his head. I work in IT and people call me a genius/hacker at times and they do it enough I start to believe it.

But then I get into something that is completely over my head and I remember exactly my place in the IT world and it is not genius/hacker status but just good enough to keep my job. The difference is I am 44, if they did that to me while I was 18 or 19yrs old I would have taken down half the company or tried to move to a job attempting stuff stuff way over my head.

 

[RunninRichie]

I have said this before but after seeing more threads on our previous players the rating needs to change.

A 5 star should never be a project player, he should either be physically gifted ala Zion/Boogie/Davis/Fox/Wall.
Or can already shoot the lights out Ala Hero/Booker/Lamb etc.

Ware (and I love his toughness) should be a 4 star.
Hagans - 4
Boston - 4
Askew- 4 (could argue high 3)
Dakari Johnson - 4
EJ Montgomery - 4
Clarke - 4


These are just some examples, can they bloom into a 5 star sure, but calling them a 5 is a big issue imo.
And if they do not produce and get benched early on = TRANSFER!
Or in Cal's case he will not bench a 5 (because of fear of transfer) and the good shooters that are 4s will go.

Dakari was a bonified 5 star

 

[Blue Wildcat]

Ratings shouldn’t matter-who fits the system the players are being recruited to? My concern for us is who are we, what’s the system? We’ve whiffed on our highest priorities the last few years. That’s why we have a team full of PF’s and no G’s and SF’s. You can’t construct a team this way and expect to compete. Blame the staff, not the rating system.

 

[FanofUK]

Dakari was a bonified 5 star

As a sophomore yes, as a freshman imo I disagree. The guy could not jump 6 inches off the ground it seemed and he was just not in shape enough to be called a 5.
If you look at football the 5 stars are just different looking players or a crazy high skill set. Dakari would not meet that criteria.

 

[catswin]

As a sophomore yes, as a freshman imo I disagree. The guy could not jump 6 inches off the ground it seemed and he was just not in shape enough to be called a 5.
If you look at football the 5 stars are just different looking players or a crazy high skill set. Dakari would not meet that criteria.

Dakari averaged 5 his freshman year and 6 the next year. He was a massive disappointment.

 

[DraftCat]

I do think the star system inflates players ego. Imagine if they had no clue and had to keep working hard. Perhaps there would be better players.

Or maybe not give out any kind of star rating until after their senior season is over.

Clearly the coaches who could eye talent would benefit in this regard instead of going by the Rivals top 100 list.

 

[fastpaste101]

We have seen 4 stars become 5 when U.K. gets involved. Then when they perform like a 3 early in the season the story is that they are busts and cal can’t develop.

Same way with freshmen. If they are long and have a pulse then the are 1st rounders because they are at U.K. and they leave ASAP.
the ky effect is real and hurts more than it helps.

 

[Madcat62_rivals113839]

I have said this before but after seeing more threads on our previous players the rating needs to change.

A 5 star should never be a project player, he should either be physically gifted ala Zion/Boogie/Davis/Fox/Wall.
Or can already shoot the lights out Ala Hero/Booker/Lamb etc.

Ware (and I love his toughness) should be a 4 star.
Hagans - 4
Boston - 4
Askew- 4 (could argue high 3)
Dakari Johnson - 4
EJ Montgomery - 4
Clarke - 4


These are just some examples, can they bloom into a 5 star sure, but calling them a 5 is a big issue imo.
And if they do not produce and get benched early on = TRANSFER!
Or in Cal's case he will not bench a 5 (because of fear of transfer) and the good shooters that are 4s will go.

cal rates the same way based on the nba projections and there lies the problem.

 

[TheOtherGreatOne]

Politics enter these ratings as much as actual talent and skill. Don't believe that ? Just look each scouting service rates each player differently. Just look at 247, then go look at espn. That is why you need a Coach or an assistant coach that can actually judge talent, not everyone that just reads how many stars are beside the player's name.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

I think the star system is based on long term potential (NBA?), which is nearly impossible to predict, instead of current ability.

Also, college and NBA are different enough, success in one not totally correlated to the other.
I always like the idea of getting guys who are undersized, or a half step slow, for their position in the NBA, making them 3-4 year guys (usually).
Ulis, Chuck Hayes, Estill, etc...

 

[fastpaste101]

I think the star system is based on long term potential (NBA?), which is nearly impossible to predict, instead of current ability.

Also, college and NBA are different enough, success in one not totally correlated to the other.
I always like the idea of getting guys who are undersized, or a half step slow, for their position in the NBA, making them 3-4 year guys (usually).
Ulis, Chuck Hayes, Estill, etc...

I agree but I think cal has been clearly trying to go after those good but not physically nba attractive players. That is a crap shoot too.

 

[FirstTimeLongTime90]

As a sophomore yes, as a freshman imo I disagree. The guy could not jump 6 inches off the ground it seemed and he was just not in shape enough to be called a 5.
If you look at football the 5 stars are just different looking players or a crazy high skill set. Dakari would not meet that criteria.

With WCS taking up Dakari’s minutes, UK would have been sitting on the couch watching Louisville in the Elite Eight vs. Michigan.

 

[Bluesnky]

I haven’t done a grand study of this or anything, but just following the UK recruits over the years it seems to me there is a pretty high correlation between a low AAU FG% and being an underwhelming freshman/bust. These athletic AAU volume shooters don’t learn to share the ball, take better shots, or finish at the rim overnight.